Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Has the zealocy of "VC Advocates" shaped your opinion?

This is a serious question.
I have been thinking some lately about the whole "VC" thing. I'm not talking about riding vehicularly, which people have been doing for ages, but rather the "whole" of the serman that is preached by VC zealots about attitude and all the other stuff that causes the flame wars.
For me; I had never heard of "VC" until I started coming in here. And after reading the posts by the zealous VC advocates and seeing how condecending they come off in their posts to others I made up my mind right then and there that "VC" is something that I do not want a part of and that I disliked John Forester before I ever read a thing he wrote. It was this forum (A&S) and a select few people that turned me off "VC" before I ever had a chance to see what it was all about. And since I am human (stubborn and set in my ways) I find it hard if not impossible to change that opinion, an opinion that, it would seem, was not made by me but instead forced upon me by the condecending nature of the advocates.

Is there anyone else in here who this applies to as well, in any form? Has anyone else had their opinion of "VC" molded by the asenine arguments and posts that happen in this forum?

This is a serious question.
I have been thinking some lately about the whole "VC" thing. I'm not talking about riding vehicularly, which people have been doing for ages, but rather the "whole" of the serman that is preached by VC zealots about attitude and all the other stuff that causes the flame wars.
For me; I had never heard of "VC" until I started coming in here. And after reading the posts by the zealous VC advocates and seeing how condecending they come off in their posts to others I made up my mind right then and there that "VC" is something that I do not want a part of and that I disliked John Forester before I ever read a thing he wrote. It was this forum (A&S) and a select few people that turned me of "VC" before I ever had a chance to see what it was all about. And since I am human (stubborn and set in my ways) I find it hard if not impossible to change that opinion, an opinion that, it would seem, was not made by me but instead forced upon me by the condecending nature of the advocates.

Is there anyone else in here who this applies to as well, in any form? Has anyone else had their opinion of "VC" molded by the asenine arguments and posts that happen in this forum?

Well, yes, some people have been cycling in the vehicular manner since the beginning of cycling, or at least since the formal organization of traffic. And you imply that you do it. I suppose, however, that you had not noticed that societal policy and governmental policy and practice are opposed to vehicular cycling. That means that vehicular cycling needs to be defended. And you complain that we present a rather condescending attitude. Of course we do, because obeying the rules of the road is obviously the right thing to do and because the opposition to vehicular cycling is based on nothing but superstition, initially generated by the motoring establishment for the convenience of motorists. If the opposition to vehicular cycling had ever put up arguments based on facts and advanced by reason, there would be something to discuss. However, that has not occurred, yet the opposition still exists and is as argumentative as ever. Condescension? You deserve no more, and maybe worse.

Yes, the caustic nature of mossy john has DEFINETLY got me opposed to his lousy, autocentric visions.

Well, yes, some people have been cycling in the vehicular manner since the beginning of cycling, or at least since the formal organization of traffic. And you imply that you do it. I suppose, however, that you had not noticed that societal policy and governmental policy and practice are opposed to vehicular cycling. That means that vehicular cycling needs to be defended. And you complain that we present a rather condescending attitude. Of course we do, because obeying the rules of the road is obviously the right thing to do and because the opposition to vehicular cycling is based on nothing but superstition, initially generated by the motoring establishment for the convenience of motorists. If the opposition to vehicular cycling had ever put up arguments based on facts and advanced by reason, there would be something to discuss. However, that has not occurred, yet the opposition still exists and is as argumentative as ever. Condescension? You deserve no more, and maybe worse.
You are correct in assuming that I have not noticed that society nor government is against vehicular cycling, in fact I am sitting here under the impression that they are more on the pro side than the con. Sure, people yell "get off the road" and other sweet sentiments to us, but that does not necessarily mean that they are against vehicular cycling. I used to laugh at the people out jogging on the sidewalks every morning because they looked silly in their skin tight clothing while running in place waiting for the crossing signal, and would sometimes make snide remarks out my window about them runing from an invisible man, but that does not mean I am against physical fitness.
As for the condecending remarks, it is the remarks made to others, not the ones made in general, that helped to form my view, especially the "you don't get it" comments that seem to be a last ditch effort to bail out of a conversation. Or saying that the people who "don't get it" somehow have less of an IQ than those that do. there is a difference between poking fun at someone (me calling you a furry faced gibbon for example) and totally trying to make someone feel inferior by telling them that the reason they do not understand what you are talking about is because they do not have a proper education or that they have an intelligence less than the people you would perfer to talk to.
I do understand that we need a voice in the public, but if that voice personally degrades the people it is supposedly trying to help then where is the good in it? If a minority leader called the people he was trying to speak for (ignorant <insert racial slur here>) then really, how much good is he acomplishing when the people in the majority just laugh at him and use his comments to enforce their own prejudices.

You very well could be one of the nicest and most formally educated people I have every come into contact on the internet, but since my opinion of you was molded by smoeone else long before you ever came here I feel I will never find that out or accept it if I do.

I've been riding vehicularly since I started commuting.

I think VC is a wonderful thing.

I think Foresterism isn't so wonderful, though. I think Foresterism is called VC on these boards.

So, to answer your question: VC advocates, as in people who advocate for cycling in a vehicular fashion, are great. VC advocates, as in people who preach Foresterism, are atrocious.

Yep, I have ridden by the law for many, many thousands of miles before I even came across "VC" and 99% of those miles involved riding in the lane, following the law as a vehicle, etc. However, it wasn't done becase I was talked to like a child who needed someopne who knows what's best for me to do that. It was done becasue it made sense to me in a self-preservation sort of way based on how I ride and do things - not on how I think it should be for everyone's situations. The VC insansity here had lead me to make it VERY clear that I am not "VC", just a very attentive and alert cyclist who follows the rules of the road because it makes sense for me.

Vehicular cycling as a term to define riding according to the rules of the road is a good thing. The political BS that comes with it from John Forester and his band of merry zealots only divides the cycling community and empowers those who want to see bicycles removed from the road.

This is a serious question.
I have been thinking some lately about the whole "VC" thing. I'm not talking about riding vehicularly, which people have been doing for ages, but rather the "whole" of the serman that is preached by VC zealots about attitude and all the other stuff that causes the flame wars.
For me; I had never heard of "VC" until I started coming in here. And after reading the posts by the zealous VC advocates and seeing how condecending they come off in their posts to others I made up my mind right then and there that "VC" is something that I do not want a part of and that I disliked John Forester before I ever read a thing he wrote. It was this forum (A&S) and a select few people that turned me of "VC" before I ever had a chance to see what it was all about. And since I am human (stubborn and set in my ways) I find it hard if not impossible to change that opinion, an opinion that, it would seem, was not made by me but instead forced upon me by the condecending nature of the advocates.

Is there anyone else in here who this applies to as well, in any form? Has anyone else had their opinion of "VC" molded by the asenine arguments and posts that happen in this forum?

I would agree with this whole-heartedly. In fact, In my own personal experience is that most blow-hard jackasses are pretty much wrong about everything, so the natural assumption is that they would be wrong about this as well. I have stated this before that a select few of the VC zealots in here do exactly the opposite of what they are intending to do just through their style of doing it, and have accused HH of actually being a pro-facilities plant placed here to enflame people against VC (jury's still out on that one). However, some others who directly or indirectly advocate VC at times like Zeytoun, Steve, Bek, and even Chip sometimes, that pass on their experience and advice without being condescending and pedantic have begun to change my opinion of "following the rules of the road" ;D

SingingSabre, natelutkjohn, chipcom, I think you hit the nail on the head... it isn't the message, but the delivery of the message that is corrosive.

I too have toured in a number of places in this country and in other countries with out the aid of any bike facilities and with some bike facilities... needless to say I accomplished my goals quite well without knowing of "VC" or "EC" or any of the politics involved. I commuted and was car free for about 10 years in the late '70s and early '80s and did it in a vehicular manner. I did not hear of Forester until some time in the mid '90s, and I only read his book about 5 years ago.

On the other hand, I have also observed a trend that seems to have come out of the "me generation" of the '80s; where motorists have been a bit less tolerant of cyclists on the road... perhaps it is the types of vehicles, or pace of life, or just general crowding... at any rate, the message isn't reaching the general public and they seem to be fine with crowding cyclists off the road. So the VC message certainly has barely made it to the tip of the cycling crowd and hasn't even begun to penetrate to the rest of the population... I think they feel they are just being nice by giving room to cyclists... it has nothing to do with our "rights" which the general population has no real idea of anyway.

SingingSabre, natelutkjohn, chipcom, I think you hit the nail on the head... it isn't the message, but the delivery of the message that is corrosive.

You got that right. I can't stand to read what Mossy John and Tom Cruise have to say anymore. I'm sick of being told that I have "Inferior Cyclist Syndrome" or whatever the **** they call it, when I know it's not the case. I ride in a manner that allows me to get where I need to go without getting killed and making as few concessions as possible. I also know that the couple hundred pounds of me and the bike have no chance in winning an argument with a couple thousand pounds of car or truck. I take the lane, I hold my position, but if the JIAC presses the issue I don't care what anyone says I'm taking the escape route I ensure I have at all times. The law of the land may be on my side, but the laws of physics sure aren't.

Yes, the zealotry of VC-ists here has definately helped turn me against VC-ism. VC zealots on this forum have been a compelling argument against VC-ism.

I have ridden according to the vehicular rules of the road for decades as a primary means of transportation. When I joined bikeforums, I pretty much believed everything that could be called VC dogma.

The absurd arguments of zealous VC advocates here and, especially, their despicable tactics, set off all kinds of crackpot alarm bells, so I started investigating further.

The recent behavior of John Forester here on this forum has removed any doubt I might have had.

I now honestly consider VC-ism to be about the worst (if not the worst) thing that has happened to the vehicular cycling concept in my lifetime.

I have no respect for some of the tactics some VC-ists (including, and maybe especially, their leader) employ. They discredit themselves. Their shoot-yourself-in-the-foot tactics have convinced me. I am now as strong an opponent of VC-ism as there could be. VC-ism is lunacy masquerading as science.

The VC-ist message and the way it is presented, not only here but elsewhere, is offensive and an insult to the intelligence of anyone exposed to it. The VC-ist brain trust evidently believes that they have all the answers and that the rest of us are all just too stupid to know what is in our own best interest. They turn a deaf ear to what life-long vehicular cyclists have to say, just as I'm sure they will turn a deaf ear to what is said in this thread.

Because, you see, VC-ists already know everything.

VC-ism is defined by the total lack of respect it has for the intelligence of others -- if there is any attitude that characterizes VC-ism, it is the belief that VC-ists, and only VC-ists, have the right answer. If there is any tactic that characterizes VC-ists, it is the tactic of belittling others (I would argue that name-calling and being insulting are John Forester's two greatest talents).

If fact, if someone asked me what VC-ism is all about, I'd say, "belittling and ridiculing others", the two things that most define the guru of VC-ism. The rest is just window dressing.

As it turns out, VC-ism is an ideology founded on quicksand - the quicksand of John Forester's wacky psychological and social theories.

Wow JRA, you really had alot to say. It seems as though you have thought about this greatly yourself.

Wow JRA, you really had alot to say. It seems as though you have thought about this greatly yourself.I have thought about it a lot. And done a fair amount of research, including reading just about everything I have access to that John Forester has written. I have also spent a ridiculous amount of time reading various websites, both pro and anti-VC-ism. VC-ism is absurd. Some of the opposing philosophies are also absurd. I'm currently in the middle treading water and riding my bike.

I have thought about it a lot. And done a fair amount of research, including reading just about everything I have access to that John Forester has written. I have also spent a ridiculous amount of time reading various websites, both pro and anti-VC-ism. VC-ism is absurd. Some of the opposing philosophies are also absurd. I'm currently in the middle treading water and riding my bike.
:beer:

Well, yes, some people have been cycling in the vehicular manner since the beginning of cycling, or at least since the formal organization of traffic. And you imply that you do it. I suppose, however, that you had not noticed that societal policy and governmental policy and practice are opposed to vehicular cycling. That means that vehicular cycling needs to be defended. And you complain that we present a rather condescending attitude. Of course we do, because obeying the rules of the road is obviously the right thing to do and because the opposition to vehicular cycling is based on nothing but superstition, initially generated by the motoring establishment for the convenience of motorists. If the opposition to vehicular cycling had ever put up arguments based on facts and advanced by reason, there would be something to discuss. However, that has not occurred, yet the opposition still exists and is as argumentative as ever. Condescension? You deserve no more, and maybe worse.
I guess, John, that you feel the need to be condescending toward those of us who question certain provisions in what you define as VC. This kind of communication, in Transactional Analysis terms, is a "crossed communication." Usually, in a discussion within a community like we have here, we try to talk "adult to adult." But when the discussion comes back from the VC people, it is "parent to child." If we continue to discuss adult-adult, then you start calling us names. When you (plural senser of the "you") come in, and some others I could easily name, except they don't go by their own names, with this VC dictitorial approach ("My way or the highway...") toward others who disagree with you, you definately turn people off. And these are the very people who take the time to come to this A&S forum because we are excited about bicycling. If you are willing to make enemies here, and this response above is one which will not make anyone a friend, then what are you really offering to the bicycling community? I will be explaining more of my thoughts on the term "VC," and the connotations I have from these forums, in this thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=297027&page=2

John

I guess, John, that you feel the need to be condescending toward those of us who question certain provisions in what you define as VC. This kind of communication, in Transactional Analysis terms, is a "crossed communication." Usually, in a discussion within a community like we have here, we try to talk "adult to adult." But when the discussion comes back from the VC people, it is "parent to child." If we continue to discuss adult-adult, then you start calling us names. When you (plural senser of the "you") come in, and some others I could easily name, except they don't go by their own names, with this VC dictitorial approach ("My way or the highway...") toward others who disagree with you, you definately turn people off. And these are the very people who take the time to come to this A&S forum because we are excited about bicycling. If you are willing to make enemies here, and this response above is one which will not make anyone a friend, then what are you really offering to the bicycling community? I will be explaining more of my thoughts on the term "VC," and the connotations I have from these forums, in this thread:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=297027&page=2

John
:beer:

Well, yes, some people have been cycling in the vehicular manner since the beginning of cycling, or at least since the formal organization of traffic. And you imply that you do it. I suppose, however, that you had not noticed that societal policy and governmental policy and practice are opposed to vehicular cycling. That means that vehicular cycling needs to be defended. And you complain that we present a rather condescending attitude. Of course we do, because obeying the rules of the road is obviously the right thing to do and because the opposition to vehicular cycling is based on nothing but superstition, initially generated by the motoring establishment for the convenience of motorists. If the opposition to vehicular cycling had ever put up arguments based on facts and advanced by reason, there would be something to discuss. However, that has not occurred, yet the opposition still exists and is as argumentative as ever. Condescension? You deserve no more, and maybe worse.
The consistency of this message and its inherent negativity is truly frightening.

Vehicular cycling as a term to define riding according to the rules of the road is a good thing. The political BS that comes with it from John Forester and his band of merry zealots only divides the cycling community and empowers those who want to see bicycles removed from the road.
+1

On the other hand, I have also observed a trend that seems to have come out of the "me generation" of the '80s; where motorists have been a bit less tolerant of cyclists on the road... perhaps it is the types of vehicles, or pace of life, or just general crowding... at any rate, the message isn't reaching the general public and they seem to be fine with crowding cyclists off the road. So the VC message certainly has barely made it to the tip of the cycling crowd and hasn't even begun to penetrate to the rest of the population... I think they feel they are just being nice by giving room to cyclists... it has nothing to do with our "rights" which the general population has no real idea of anyway.
This is why the failure to include motorist education in the Foresterologists agenda is so egregious.

The consistency of this message and its inherent negativity is truly frightening.
It's one of the main reasons he and "Tom Cruise" can kiss my
http://overthetop.beloblog.com/archives/heehaw.jpg

Well, yes, some people have been cycling in the vehicular manner since the beginning of cycling, or at least since the formal organization of traffic. And you imply that you do it. I suppose, however, that you had not noticed that societal policy and governmental policy and practice are opposed to vehicular cycling. That means that vehicular cycling needs to be defended. And you complain that we present a rather condescending attitude. Of course we do, because obeying the rules of the road is obviously the right thing to do and because the opposition to vehicular cycling is based on nothing but superstition, initially generated by the motoring establishment for the convenience of motorists. If the opposition to vehicular cycling had ever put up arguments based on facts and advanced by reason, there would be something to discuss. However, that has not occurred, yet the opposition still exists and is as argumentative as ever. Condescension? You deserve no more, and maybe worse.

If he rides according to VC, how is he the opposition?

Do you believe the education of VC is important? What sort of relationship should the teacher have with the student to get the best results?

For me; I had never heard of "VC" until I started coming in here. And after reading the posts by the zealous VC advocates and seeing how condecending they come off in their posts to others I made up my mind right then and there that "VC" is something that I do not want a part of and that I disliked John Forester before I ever read a thing he wrote. It was this forum (A&S) and a select few people that turned me of "VC" before I ever had a chance to see what it was all about.
I'm sorry that's happened to you, and to many others on this board who have always been quite vocal about their dislike of "VC advocates." But as I've also always said, people who share similar opinions about things don't always share the same personalities. You really shouldn't equate (and I don't mean to talk down to you by telling you how to think) personalities with ideas. Not that it's not tempting, but there are many cyclists who share some of John Forester's views on certain aspects of cycling that do not share his confrontational personality. The assimilation of ideas, ideally, should not be limited by personality, but there you have it, it is.

I have sometimes cringed at the overly strong language John Forester has used to ridicule his opponents. But by the same token, his opponents on this board have not exactly been angels, man. I have taken quite a few hits myself, just because I admitted I agreed with the man about some things. But agreeing about some things does not make one a "disciple," "acolyte," etc. (you get the picture, enough of that.)

But seriously, do you not notice that I, myself, have attempted on many occasions to bridge the gap between these opposing groups? I have argued with HH and ILTB, Gene and Bek, Sbhikes. I have also agreed with these people.(I think the only person I have not argued with is myself...wait, no, maybe I have...) I think I have even lost a friend over it. I am not an "idealogue," and I sincerely see the kinship we all share when facing problems associated with sharing the roads with motor traffic, as well as the problems in using some facilities.

My hope is that I can remain honest in my opinions, regardless of which side of the fence those opinions fall, and that you (and other cyclists) can separate personality from viewpoint.

Nobody is cut out like cookies on a sheet. And that's a really good thing, don't you think?

If he rides according to VC, how is he the opposition?

Do you believe education of VC is important? What sort of relationship should the teacher have with the student to get the best results?

I do ride vehicularly when it suits me. which means I ride vehicularly any time I am within a lane on a public road. But I am a proponent of bicycle paths, lanes, and other facilities. I could get into the reason why but it will do nothing more than switch this thread from my intentioned purpose to a bike lane debate and I do not want that.
However, I am opposed to the ideology of "VC" as defined by the numerous posts by Helmet Head and others where they believe (or so it would seem) that you need some sort of attitude in order to ride vehicularly and also that you must believe that bike facilities are dangerous and should not be in the first place.

I'm sorry that's happened to you, and to many others on this board who have always been quite vocal about their dislike of "VC advocates." But as I've also always said, people who share similar opinions about things don't always share the same personalities. You really shouldn't equate (and I don't mean to talk down to you by telling you how to think) personalities with ideas. Not that it's not tempting, but there are many cyclists who share some of John Forester's views on certain aspects of cycling that do not share his confrontational personality. The assimilation of ideas, ideally, should not be limited by personality, but there you have it, it is.

It is not for you to apologize for the way I feel. And as you mentioned, I do not necessarily equate personalities with opinions. there are plenty of other people on here who are VC advocates who do not subscribe to the controversial aspects of it. And I have never (to my knowledge) said one cross thing to any of them. You and Gene come to mind when I think of that. It is quite clear to me that you guys are Vehicular Cyclists but you do not talk about the psychological and political aspects of VC when you are talking about cycling.
It is the other Vehicular Cyclists that have helped to shape my opinion and their "either you are with us or against us and an untelligent illiterate" attitude that irks the ever loving **** out of me.



I have sometimes cringed at the overly strong language John Forester has used to ridicule his opponents. But by the same token, his opponents on this board have not exactly been angels, man. I have taken quite a few hits myself, just because I admitted I agreed with the man about some things. But agreeing about some things does not make one a "disciple," "acolyte," etc. (you get the picture, enough of that.)

Yes, I understand you completely. And I have agreed with the VCists myself on certain aspects of things, even Helmet Head. But we are all human and strong language (read: rude language) is a part of our being, so I never take offense at someone for using strong and/or foul language with me, it is the "I'm smarter and better than you" posts that makes my browneye tight enough to turn coal into diamonds.



But seriously, do you not notice that I, myself, have attempted on many occasions to bridge the gap between these opposing groups? I have argued with HH and ILTB, Gene and Bek, Sbhikes. I have also agreed with these people.(I think the only person I have not argued with is myself...wait, no, maybe I have...) I think I have even lost a friend over it. I am not an "idealogue," and I sincerely see the kinship we all share when facing problems associated with sharing the roads with motor traffic, as well as the problems in using some facilities.

Off the top of my head I can not recall any of these instances. But I usually don't remember who posted what in what thread about so and so subject thus I will take your word on it.
But bridging the gap is hard when only one side is willing to comprimise and the other stands on the opposite bank tossing intellectual insults and saying you just don't get it every time they get tired of the discussion.



My hope is that I can remain honest in my opinions, regardless of which side of the fence those opinions fall, and that you (and other cyclists) can separate personality from viewpoint.

Nobody is cut out like cookies on a sheet. And that's a really good thing, don't you think?
I can back you on this. A statement that some people should really heed.

Is there anyone else in here who this applies to as well, in any form? Has anyone else had their opinion of "VC" molded by the asenine arguments and posts that happen in this forum?

There are more sane VC people out there, pj7. This IS the
worst of the worst if thats any consolation to you. Unfortunately,
this whole board is sort of the microcosm of the macrocosm on
why bicyclists are our own worst enemy and will pretty much just
be relegated to 'fringe' group as far as being a bloc goes.
We will never achieve the power that an ABATE, AARP or NRA has.
Too much petty infighting.....VCers disapprove of non-VCers, commuters
hate roadies, etc...everyone is right and everyone else is wrong...:rolleyes:

Good enuf. Thanks, y'all.

You really shouldn't equate (and I don't mean to talk down to you by telling you how to think) personalities with ideas. Not that it's not tempting, but there are many cyclists who share some of John Forester's views on certain aspects of cycling that do not share his confrontational personality...

I have sometimes cringed at the overly strong language John Forester has used to ridicule his opponents. But by the same token, his opponents on this board have not exactly been angels, man...You are right, LBM, John Forester's opponents have not always been angels. I would argue that both sides have, on occasion, discredited themselves. I would futher argue that it is in John Forester's nature and one of his distinguishing charateristics. For some (but, sadly, not all) of his opponents, it's out of character.



I have taken quite a few hits myself, just because I admitted I agreed with the man about some things. But agreeing about some things does not make one a "disciple," "acolyte," etc. (you get the picture, enough of that.)

But seriously, do you not notice that I, myself, have attempted on many occasions to bridge the gap between these opposing groups?I have noticed that and I have also noticed that you have taken some hits. From my perspective the hits have not always been entirely undeserved although I can understand how you might have a different opinion. In any case, I have always thought of you as someone who at least tries to see both sides.

Misconceptions are common. I don't doubt that some think I'm a strong facilities proponent, even though nothing could be further from the truth.



My hope is that I can remain honest in my opinions, regardless of which side of the fence those opinions fall, and that you (and other cyclists) can separate personality from viewpoint.I have always tried very hard to separate personality from viewpoint. But sometimes personality dictates the viewpoint



Nobody is cut out like cookies on a sheet. And that's a really good thing, don't you think?Oh, yes, diversity is a very good thing. It is one of the things I treasure and appreciate most. What a boring world it would be if we were all the same.

Little boxes, little boxes
Little boxes made of ticky tacky
Little boxes, little boxes
Little boxes all the same

There's a red one and a green one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same

(the preceeding was a tribute to urban sprawl)

Green Douglas Fir where the water cut through
Down her wild mountains and canyons she flew
Canadian northwest to the ocean so blue
Roll on, Columbia, roll on

Other great rivers lend power to you
Yakima, Snake and the Klickitat, too
Sandy, Willammette and the Hood River, too
Roll on, Columbia, roll on

(what is this obession with rivers?)

I make my home
On the Mississippi
I'm a roustabout
On a steamboat line...

---

I'm as free as a breeze
And I ride where I please
Saddle tramp, saddle tramp.

Different enough for ya, LBM? :D

I'm good... :D

I'm good... :D

But I'm not quite done yet. :D

Tom Jefferson's vision would not let him rest
Empire he saw in the Pacific Northwest
Sent Lewis and Clark and we did the rest
So roll on, Columbia, roll on

At Bonneville now there are ships in the locks
The waters have risen and cleared all the rocks
Shiploads of plenty will steam past the docks
So roll on, Columbia, roll on

Too much petty infighting.....VCers disapprove of non-VCers, commuters
hate roadies, etc...everyone is right and everyone else is wrong...:rolleyes:
I don't hate roadies, (well maybe the overly OCP ones). BMX'ers especially the little SOB's who can't type except in AOL'ese - now THEY turn my crank :p :rolleyes:

I don't hate roadies, (well maybe the overly OCP ones). BMX'ers especially the little SOB's who can't type except in AOL'ese - now THEY turn my crank :p :rolleyes:
Not to derail my own thread, but I do hold *some* prejudices against the roadies (not necessarily the ones on this forum, I am talking about the locals here).
During the cold months it is just me and the motorists, and we get along great for the most part. Me riding my bicycles wearing my yellow jacket and black pants, the motorists driving their smoke breathing dragons. I signal, I obey the laws; they seem to respect me and do not harass me.
Then the warm months come and like a flock of locusts the roadies are all over. 90% of my route is along Metro Parkway, which leads to Metro Beach, which is the destination spot for most roadies. They usually park at Freedom Hill Park and ride to and from the beach which is a 30 mile loop. They are dressed in their flashy costumes showing off the sausage and being overly assertive about their "rights" to the road, then overstepping those rights by not being curteous while on the road and doing a nice little loop-de-loop at intersections so that they don't have to stop (approach a red light, turn right, go down a little ways the pull a U-turn, come back to light, hang a right, and off you go and avoid having to stop all together). This irritates motorists, possibly causing a little jealousy in them.
Motorists see me as a regular joe biking utilarian. Then they see these guys dressed like superheors from comic books flaunting their ability to "avoid" traffic control devices and they start to just group us all together.
So while it is "roadie season" motorists are more unfriendly to me. Maybe some roadie just ut them off (and they do) or maybe they got tired of some guy showing off his enormous manhood bulging from his spandex in front of their 7 year old daughter, it's doesn't matter to me what reason, the fact is that they start treating me worse because of it... or so it seems.
Then the cold weather comes and the roadies break out their trainers and it is just me and the motorists again.

:lol: There's no real "off" season here. I just ride the same way I always do.

They are dressed in their flashy costumes showing off the sausage ...

Lol, nice dude.


and being overly assertive about their "rights" to the road, then overstepping those rights by not being curteous while on the road and doing a nice little loop-de-loop at intersections so that they don't have to stop (approach a red light, turn right, go down a little ways the pull a U-turn, come back to light, hang a right, and off you go and avoid having to stop all together). This irritates motorists, possibly causing a little jealousy in them.


The funny thing is that this trick would actually be a total of 2 violations (3 in most cities) instead of just the 1 for blowing the light. Although I imagine it doesn't catch the attention of the po-po as much as Mr. SausageHighlighter blowing the light at 25 mph.

Lol, nice dude.



The funny thing is that this trick would actually be a total of 2 violations (3 in most cities) instead of just the 1 for blowing the light. Although I imagine it doesn't catch the attention of the po-po as much as Mr. SausageHighlighter blowing the light at 25 mph.

I think the police are scared to cite a cyclist in full kit. really, would you risk someome driving by and snapping a shot of you while standing next to someone who looks like they found a new place to hid a banana and two ping pong balls? What if you are in some sort of comprimising position where say... your hand appears to be stroking said phallus?
Yeah, so the cops just drive by and avoid it all together, I don't blame them! :D

Not to derail the thread ........but I totally agree.
I use the 'roadie Vs. commuter' in my previous post because
I believe club ride/ training roadies are THE BIGGEST hinderance to
achieving a harmonious balance with the angry, non-cycling public,
but this is for another thread .


Shes a good ole mule an her
name is Sal...15 miles on the
Erie canal............:D





being overly assertive about their "rights" to the road, then overstepping those rights by not being curteous while on the road and doing a nice little loop-de-loop at intersections so that they don't have to stop (approach a red light, turn right, go down a little ways the pull a U-turn, come back to light, hang a right, and off you go and avoid having to stop all together). This irritates motorists, possibly causing a little jealousy in them.
Motorists see me as a regular joe biking utilarian. Then they see these guys dressed like superheors from comic books flaunting their ability to "avoid" traffic control devices and they start to just group us all together.
So while it is "roadie season" motorists are more unfriendly to me. Maybe some roadie just ut them off (and they do) or maybe they got tired of some guy showing off his enormous manhood bulging from his spandex in front of their 7 year old daughter, it's doesn't matter to me what reason, the fact is that they start treating me worse because of it... or so it seems.
Then the cold weather comes and the roadies break out their trainers and it is just me and the motorists again.

Not to derail my own thread, but I do hold *some* prejudices against the roadies (not necessarily the ones on this forum, I am talking about the locals here).
During the cold months it is just me and the motorists, and we get along great for the most part. Me riding my bicycles wearing my yellow jacket and black pants, the motorists driving their smoke breathing dragons. I signal, I obey the laws; they seem to respect me and do not harass me.
Then the warm months come and like a flock of locusts the roadies are all over. 90% of my route is along Metro Parkway, which leads to Metro Beach, which is the destination spot for most roadies. They usually park at Freedom Hill Park and ride to and from the beach which is a 30 mile loop. They are dressed in their flashy costumes showing off the sausage and being overly assertive about their "rights" to the road, then overstepping those rights by not being curteous while on the road and doing a nice little loop-de-loop at intersections so that they don't have to stop (approach a red light, turn right, go down a little ways the pull a U-turn, come back to light, hang a right, and off you go and avoid having to stop all together). This irritates motorists, possibly causing a little jealousy in them.
Motorists see me as a regular joe biking utilarian. Then they see these guys dressed like superheors from comic books flaunting their ability to "avoid" traffic control devices and they start to just group us all together.
So while it is "roadie season" motorists are more unfriendly to me. Maybe some roadie just ut them off (and they do) or maybe they got tired of some guy showing off his enormous manhood bulging from his spandex in front of their 7 year old daughter, it's doesn't matter to me what reason, the fact is that they start treating me worse because of it... or so it seems.
Then the cold weather comes and the roadies break out their trainers and it is just me and the motorists again.


I agree with you that cyclists of this type are unlawful and promote a bad image of cyclists. However, we need to consider the source of their actions. These people are not cycling in the vehicular cycling way. And we have so much opposition to vehicular cycling. Not unexpected, should that irony be. They are just the vigorous end of the anti-vehicular-cycling spectrum, and our society doesn't care at either end because our society does not consider vehicular cycling desirable. As I keep telling motorists who complain about cyclist behavior, since you are members of the organizations that promoted unlawful cycling instead of vehicular cycling, you have no right to complain. Just fix your problem, and that will aid in fixing our problem.

At Bonneville now there are ships in the locks
The waters have risen and cleared all the rocks
Shiploads of plenty will steam past the docks
So roll on, Columbia, roll on
Kind of ironic how Woody Guthrie commemorated and memorialized the building of numerous salmon-killing dams with a song titled 'Roll on Columbia'. Just goes to show that socialists aren't necessarily environmentalists any more than the capitalists are.

:(

As I keep telling motorists who complain about cyclist behavior, since you are members of the organizations that promoted unlawful cycling instead of vehicular cycling, you have no right to complain. Just fix your problem, and that will aid in fixing our problem.
I am sure that typical Forester Brand response goes over as well with motorists as typical Forester Brand advice goes over with cyclists.

Not to derail my own thread, but I do hold *some* prejudices against the roadies (not necessarily the ones on this forum, I am talking about the locals here).
During the cold months it is just me and the motorists, and we get along great for the most part. Me riding my bicycles wearing my yellow jacket and black pants, the motorists driving their smoke breathing dragons. I signal, I obey the laws; they seem to respect me and do not harass me.
Then the warm months come and like a flock of locusts the roadies are all over. 90% of my route is along Metro Parkway, which leads to Metro Beach, which is the destination spot for most roadies. They usually park at Freedom Hill Park and ride to and from the beach which is a 30 mile loop. They are dressed in their flashy costumes showing off the sausage and being overly assertive about their "rights" to the road, then overstepping those rights by not being curteous while on the road and doing a nice little loop-de-loop at intersections so that they don't have to stop (approach a red light, turn right, go down a little ways the pull a U-turn, come back to light, hang a right, and off you go and avoid having to stop all together). This irritates motorists, possibly causing a little jealousy in them.
Motorists see me as a regular joe biking utilarian. Then they see these guys dressed like superheors from comic books flaunting their ability to "avoid" traffic control devices and they start to just group us all together.
So while it is "roadie season" motorists are more unfriendly to me. Maybe some roadie just ut them off (and they do) or maybe they got tired of some guy showing off his enormous manhood bulging from his spandex in front of their 7 year old daughter, it's doesn't matter to me what reason, the fact is that they start treating me worse because of it... or so it seems.
Then the cold weather comes and the roadies break out their trainers and it is just me and the motorists again.
It's the circle of life, you know...seasonal migration and all...you should get out your binoculars and quit complaining about the opportunities you have to catalogue the different varieties of our feathered friends... :D (If you're not married, you might fall upon an unattached female variety!)

In answer to the original question, I can relate.

I came here seeking camraderie to help me keep to my personal pledge to ride my bike to work. I asked a few "how do I handle this situation" questions. Got some helpful advice, until the stuff about how I shouldn't have pulled over to avoid being hit by a beer truck (Red Flag #1), and how stupid I am to ride in bike paths and bike lanes, and all that other stuff.

Talk about showing off your sausage, there's been a whole lot of sausage-showing in the "take the lane" BS I've heard. *Pulls up pants, sniffs* Well, I wouldn't ride in that dangerous shoulder where the logging trucks might overlook my sausage. I would always take the lane and only pull over after my log-sized sausage was adequately acknowledged! Puhleeze! (Red Flag #2)

I gave some thought to the ideas I heard, but many of them came with too much anti-bike lane baggage to make any sense in the conditions I ride in daily. For instance, I tried the "ride in the lane and only pull over to let people pass" idea, and decided it was not a good plan, then was told I have a low IQ because clearly I was incapable of comprehending such a plan. (Red Flag #3)

Then the Lord and Master of the ones who diagnosed my mental deficiencies came on board and the whole crowd has taken on a fever pitch of negativity and rank sexism (Red Flag #4) that simply leads me to say I won't ever advocate anything to anybody that might lead anyone to this crowd.

It's not that vehicular cycling is wrong. I just can't understand what good it will accomplish to ridicule and berate people and tell them they are suffering from superstitions and mental disorders. That's crazy talk and puts you on my ignore list.

Apparently, if the conversations I have with real world advocates are any indication, the "ignore list" is where these people end up anyway.

Edit: How can I forget when somebody posted a link to Forester's smiling face on the American Dream Coalition web site! That was the biggest red flag of all, and happened right around the time he and Randal O'Toole came to speak for a local organization in Santa Barbara that actively fights against the work of the bicycle coalition.

I realized then that the Forester Brand of VC is more about creating cyclists who advocate for auto-centric urban development (whether they know they do it or not) than it is about making things safer or better for cyclists. That was the last Red Flag (although I must admit none of my red flags were in any particular order) and the final nail in the coffin of any interest I might have in Forester Brand Vehicular Cycling.

In answer to the original question, I can relate.

I came here seeking camraderie to help me keep to my personal pledge to ride my bike to work. I asked a few "how do I handle this situation" questions. Got some helpful advice, until the stuff about how I shouldn't have pulled over to avoid being hit by a beer truck (Red Flag #1), and how stupid I am to ride in bike paths and bike lanes, and all that other stuff.

Talk about showing off your sausage, there's been a whole lot of sausage-showing in the "take the lane" BS I've heard. *Pulls up pants, sniffs* Well, I wouldn't ride in that dangerous shoulder where the logging trucks might overlook my sausage. I would always take the lane and only pull over after my log-sized sausage was adequately acknowledged! Puhleeze! (Red Flag #2)

I gave some thought to the ideas I heard, but many of them came with too much anti-bike lane baggage to make any sense in the conditions I ride in daily. For instance, I tried the "ride in the lane and only pull over to let people pass" idea, and decided it was not a good plan, then was told I have a low IQ because clearly I was incapable of comprehending such a plan. (Red Flag #3)

Then the Lord and Master of the ones who diagnosed my mental deficiencies came on board and the whole crowd has taken on a fever pitch of negativity and rank sexism (Red Flag #4) that simply leads me to say I won't ever advocate anything to anybody that might lead anyone to this crowd.

It's not that vehicular cycling is wrong. I just can't understand what good it will accomplish to ridicule and berate people and tell them they are suffering from superstitions and mental disorders. That's crazy talk and puts you on my ignore list.

Apparently, if the conversations I have with real world advocates are any indication, the "ignore list" is where these people end up anyway.
Maybe message boards are not the best place to get to know people?

In answer to the original question, I can relate.

I came here seeking camraderie to help me keep to my personal pledge to ride my bike to work. I asked a few "how do I handle this situation" questions. Got some helpful advice, until the stuff about how I shouldn't have pulled over to avoid being hit by a beer truck (Red Flag #1), and how stupid I am to ride in bike paths and bike lanes, and all that other stuff.

Talk about showing off your sausage, there's been a whole lot of sausage-showing in the "take the lane" BS I've heard. *Pulls up pants, sniffs* Well, I wouldn't ride in that dangerous shoulder where the logging trucks might overlook my sausage. I would always take the lane and only pull over after my log-sized sausage was adequately acknowledged! Puhleeze! (Red Flag #2)

I gave some thought to the ideas I heard, but many of them came with too much anti-bike lane baggage to make any sense in the conditions I ride in daily. For instance, I tried the "ride in the lane and only pull over to let people pass" idea, and decided it was not a good plan, then was told I have a low IQ because clearly I was incapable of comprehending such a plan. (Red Flag #3)

Then the Lord and Master of the ones who diagnosed my mental deficiencies came on board and the whole crowd has taken on a fever pitch of negativity and rank sexism (Red Flag #4) that simply leads me to say I won't ever advocate anything to anybody that might lead anyone to this crowd.

It's not that vehicular cycling is wrong. I just can't understand what good it will accomplish to ridicule and berate people and tell them they are suffering from superstitions and mental disorders. That's crazy talk and puts you on my ignore list.

Apparently, if the conversations I have with real world advocates are any indication, the "ignore list" is where these people end up anyway.

Edit: How can I forget when somebody posted a link to Forester's smiling face on the American Dream Coalition web site! That was the biggest red flag of all, and happened right around the time he and Randal O'Toole came to speak for a local organization in Santa Barbara that actively fights against the work of the bicycle coalition.

I realized then that the Forester Brand of VC is more about creating cyclists who advocate for auto-centric urban development (whether they know they do it or not) than it is about making things safer or better for cyclists. That was the last Red Flag (although I must admit none of my red flags were in any particular order) and the final nail in the coffin of any interest I might have in Forester Brand Vehicular Cycling.

Diane, I do not know what questions you asked nor what advice you received before I was informed that my views were being discussed. However, I seem to remember that your initial words to me presented pro-bikeway views with a distinctly antagonistic attitude. A big red flag because I opposed certain road designs proposed for Santa Barbara that were bad for cyclists and I said that cyclists need good roads? Was that the source of your antagonism? I sincerely hope not. More likely what upset you was that I refused to take part in your anti-motoring campaign. Of course not, I was talking about what is good for cyclists, not about making things worse for motorists. In other words, much of your side of the discussion was about anti-motoring, not about vehicular cycling at all.

It appears that, for one reason or another, you either do not understand the issues, or you refuse to consider them. And at least one of your hopes was absurd, that our cities could be rearranged so that everybody could ride to work on bike paths well separated from traffic. I think, indeed, that you need to learn far more about the subject that fascinates you and then consider how better to understand it. Or, of course, just pay attention to your personal cycling and ignore the rest.

Maybe message boards are not the best place to get to know people?
Who said anything about getting to know anybody. I have no interest in meeting anybody on this forum in person, although if we happened to meet I wouldn't go running from the room.

I simply find thinking about and talking about cycling, plus defending my position about the cycling facilities I use, to be a motivating factor in keeping me on my bike each day. Makes me grateful for what I have.

Who said anything about getting to know anybody. I have no interest in meeting anybody on this forum in person, although if we happened to meet I wouldn't go running from the room.
I think getting to know people in person is always a better idea.

Then again, when you argue on a message board, it's not necessary to know anyone personally. Sort of like when you're driving a car, it's much easier to flip someone a bird when they aren't your Aunt Sarah.

(I guess I'd better start following my own advice on that one...)

What I dont understand about this whole debate is why anyone really cares anyway.


Who really cares if someone is in a bike lane or in the middle of a lane? Both can be ridden safely if the person riding is paying attention. There are situations where the bike lane is safer, and there are situations where taking the lane is safer. I like my bike lanes. The ones near where I live are about 2 m wide and give me a spot away from traffic that often moves at 100kmph. Before they fixed the road, the road was hamburger, and "taking the lane" was not a wise move (due in large part to a lot of blind summits). However, in our downtown, I own the right lane and stay out of the door zone. Why is it that some here would flay me alive for liking the bike lanes when it makes sense to and others would burn me at the stake for taking a lane when it makes sense to? Never understood that one.

It is the dogmatic adherance to one form of riding as being superior to another that I honestly do not understand. It is as nonsensical as insisting that people who commute are not serious cyclists and that if you are in spandex you are a poser. Both are bigotted views, and quite frankly, annoying and rude.

What I appreciate and have learned from this forum is how easy it is to be assertive and communicate what I need to do to remain safe to motorists. Since I got better at that, I have had almost zero issues with other road users. Thanks for that, it is appreciated.

We are all individuals here, and all ride bikes. That, and an ability to speak something resembling English, are what most of us have in common with each other. Some of us like bike paths, some like bike lanes, some ride VC, some ride to work, some mtn bike, some road race, and some do all of those depending on where they are and on what bike they are on.

I am not suggesting we have a group hug, but perhaps keeping the debate civil would not hurt. Then maybe, people will feel able to ask questions and not get jumped on.

What I dont understand about this whole debate is why anyone really cares anyway.

Who really cares if someone is in a bike lane or in the middle of a lane? Both can be ridden safely if the person riding is paying attention.
+1
One meme that I here repeated is this idea that this group or that "is giving the rest of us real cyclists a bad name."

As a car driver or cyclist I only have a problem with wrong way and ninja cyclists because I don't want to hit anyone.

Other then that, I am fine with however anyone rides, CM, roadie, club rider, commuter, fred on a cruiser, old guy on the side walk. Somehow I don't believe that any of them reflect on me. Cars drivers pass different types of cyclists at different speeds and distances, ergo, car drivers are pretty good at figuring out your behavior when they are following you. If they aren't, they probably didn't notice the "improper" behavior of whatever other cyclist they passed before you...

I don't hate roadies, (well maybe the overly OCP ones). BMX'ers especially the little SOB's who can't type except in AOL'ese - now THEY turn my crank :p :rolleyes:
While AOL'ese is certainly irritating, I think the BMX'ers are cute - kind of like baby wolverines. :)

My tolerance for roadies hit its absolute limit inside the grocery store this afternoon where a roadie fully outfitted in eye-damaging road clownsuit bashed into me with his bike in the cereal aisle. It's not like there aren't 44 bike parking spaces outside our neighborhood grocery store - 22 good staple racks that are well placed and in view of just about everyone going in and out of the building. My bike's never been so much as breathed on wrong out there. The guy just couldn't bear to lock his bike up outside on a sunny day. Perhaps the lock weighed too much and so he couldn't manage to bring it with him? I don't know. All I know is that despite elevation and ice, I am going to have an incredibly nasty line of bruising on the leg he bashed into. It's already starting... :mad: I'm not even going to get into the 4 near misses I had with roadies just this past week alone.

Who said anything about getting to know anybody. I have no interest in meeting anybody on this forum in person, although if we happened to meet I wouldn't go running from the room.

You know you want me (well my head on a stick anyway)...and yes, you would go running from the room...I have that effect on people. :p :D

While AOL'ese is certainly irritating, I think the BMX'ers are cute - kind of like baby wolverines. :)

My tolerance for roadies hit its absolute limit inside the grocery store this afternoon where a roadie fully outfitted in eye-damaging road clownsuit bashed into me with his bike in the cereal aisle. It's not like there aren't 44 bike parking spaces outside our neighborhood grocery store - 22 good staple racks that are well placed and in view of just about everyone going in and out of the building. My bike's never been so much as breathed on wrong out there. The guy just couldn't bear to lock his bike up outside on a sunny day. Perhaps the lock weighed too much and so he couldn't manage to bring it with him? I don't know. All I know is that despite elevation and ice, I am going to have an incredibly nasty line of bruising on the leg he bashed into. It's already starting... :mad: I'm not even going to get into the 4 near misses I had with roadies just this past week alone.

A roadie, carry a lock? Which planet did you visit to observe this strange behavior?